ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY...Coating of Metal Cans, and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685 for...

The EPA Administrator, Andrew R. Wheeler, signed the following notice on 12/20/2019, and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the rule, it is not the official version of the rule for purposes of compliance. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office's govinfo website (https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/fr) and on Regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov) in Docket Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685. Once the official version of this document is published in the FR, this version will be removed from the Internet and replaced with a link to the official version.

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685; FRL]

RIN 2060–AT51

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans

and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Residual Risk and Technology Reviews

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action on

the residual risk and technology reviews (RTRs) conducted for the Surface Coating of Metal

Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories regulated under national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). The EPA is also taking final action on

amendments for the two source categories to address emissions during periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); electronic reporting of performance test results and

compliance reports; the addition of EPA Method 18 and updates to several measurement

methods; and the addition of requirements for periodic performance testing. Additionally, several

miscellaneous technical amendments are being made to improve the clarity of the rule

requirements. We are making no revisions to the numerical emission limits for the two source

categories based on the residual risk and technology reviews.

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/frhttps://www.regulations.gov/

of 162

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Andrew R. Wheeler on 12/20/2019. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

DATES: This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE

FEDERAL REGISTER]. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in

the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [INSERT DATE OF

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-

OAR-2017-0684 for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart KKKK, Surface

Coating of Metal Cans, and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685 for 40 CFR part 63,

subpart SSSS, Surface Coating of Metal Coil. All documents in the docket are listed on the

https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not publicly

available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the

Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket

materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard

copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution

Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30

p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the

Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center

is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,

contact Ms. Paula Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs

Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)

541-2618; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected]. For specific

of 162


information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris Sarsony, Health and

Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone

number: (919) 541-4843; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address:

[email protected]. For information about the applicability of these NESHAP to a particular

entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address:

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this

preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for

reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BPA bisphenol A BPA-NI not intentionally containing BPA CAA Clean Air Act CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CEMS continuous emissions monitoring systems CFR Code of Federal Regulations DGME diethylene glycol monobutyl ether EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERT Electronic Reporting Tool HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrochloric acid HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient HQREL hazard quotient recommended exposure limit

of 162


IBR incorporation by reference ICR Information Collection Request kg kilogram km kilometer MACT maximum achievable control technology MIR maximum individual risk NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NSPS new source performance standard NSR New Source Review NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and

bioaccumulative in the environment PDF portable document format PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PTE permanent total enclosure REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RTR residual risk and technology review SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act VCS voluntary consensus standards

Background information. On June 4, 2019, the EPA proposed revisions to the Surface

Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP based on our

RTRs. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions to the rules. In this preamble, we

summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed

rule and provide our responses. A summary of all the public comments on the proposed rules and

the EPA’s responses to those comments is available in the “Summary of Public Comments and

of 162


Responses for the Risk and Technology Reviews for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the

Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP,” in Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684 and

EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685. A “track changes” version of the regulatory language that

incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket for each rule.

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What are the source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source categories? C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our June 4, 2019, RTR proposal? III. What is included in these final rules? A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk reviews for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories? B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology reviews for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories? C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of SSM? D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the revisions to the standards? F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA? IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories? A. Residual Risk Reviews B. Technology Reviews C. Electronic Reporting Provisions D. SSM Provisions E. Ongoing Compliance Demonstrations V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

of 162


A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are shown

in Table 1 of this preamble.

TABLE 1. NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION

NESHAP Source Category

NAICS1 Code

Regulated Entities2

Surface Coating of Metal Cans

332431 332115 332116 332812 332999 332431 332812

Two-piece Beverage Can Facilities, Three-piece Food Can Facilities, Two-piece Draw and Iron Facilities, One-piece Aerosol Can Facilities. Can Assembly Facilities. End Manufacturing Facilities.

of 162


Surface Coating of Metal Coil

325992 326199 331110 331221 331315 331318 331420 332311 332312 332322 3328123

332999 333249 337920

Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing. All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing. Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing. Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing. Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing. Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding. Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying. Prefabricated Metal Building and Component Manufacturing. Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing. Sheet Metal Work Manufacturing. Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers. All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing. Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing. Blind and Shade Manufacturing.

1 North American Industry Classification System. 2 Regulated entities are major source facilities that apply surface coatings to these parts or products. 3 The majority of coil coating facilities are included in NAICS Code 332812.

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for

readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source categories listed.

To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in

the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of

these NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

In addition to being available in the dockets, an electronic copy of this final action will

also be available on the Internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will

post copies of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-

coating-metal-cans-national-emission-standards-hazardous and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-

sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-metal-coil-national-emission-standards-hazardous.

Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version

and key technical documents at these same websites.

of 162


Additional information is available on the RTR website at

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-

emissions-standards-hazardous. This information includes an overview of the RTR program,

links to project websites for the RTR source categories, and detailed emissions data and other

data we used as inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is

available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the

requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or

criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or

procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment

(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a

mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate

to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public

comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but

within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the

outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition

for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the

person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and

of 162


the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel

(Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions

of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify

categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then

promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are those that emit,

or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy

or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred

to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum

degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements,

and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA

section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods,

systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate

HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;

enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released

from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice,

or operational standards; or any combination of the above.

For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency

requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based

on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be

less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source.

of 162


The MACT floor for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they

cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12

percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources

for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we

must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section

112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration

of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental

impacts, and energy requirements.

In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two

different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review.

Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them

“as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control

technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under

the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of

the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample

margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy,

safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is

required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA

section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current

standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise

the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).1 For more information on the statutory

1 The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“If EPA determines that the existing technology-

of 162


authority for this rule, see the proposal preamble (84 FR 25908, June 4, 2019) and the

memorandum, CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and

Methodology, December 14, 2017, in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans Docket and the Surface

Coating of Metal Coil Docket.

B. What are the source categories and how do the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the

source categories?

1. What is the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category and how does the current

NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?

The EPA promulgated the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP on November 13,

2003 (68 FR 64432). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK. The Surface

Coating of Metal Cans industry consists of facilities that are engaged in the surface coating of

metal cans and ends (including decorative tins) and metal crowns and closures. The source

category covered by this MACT standard currently includes five facilities.

The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP (40 CFR 63.3561) defines a “metal can” as

“a single-walled container manufactured from metal substrate equal to or thinner than 0.3785

millimeter (mm) (0.0149 inch)” and includes coating operations for four subcategories: (1) one-

and two- piece draw and iron can body coating; (2) sheetcoating; (3) three-piece can body

assembly coating; and (4) end coating. The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP also

defines a “coating” as “a material that is applied to a substrate for decorative, protective, or

functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints, sealants, caulks, inks,

based standards provide an ’ample margin of safety,’ then the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.”).

of 162


adhesives, and maskants.” This source category is further described in the June 4, 2019, RTR

proposal. See 84 FR 25908.

The primary HAP emitted from this source category are organic HAP and include glycol

ethers, formaldehyde, xylenes, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, 2-(hexyloxy) ethanol, ethyl

benzene, and methanol. These HAP account for 99 percent of the HAP emissions from the

source category. The HAP emissions from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category

are emitted from the coating materials which include the coatings, thinners, and cleaning

materials used in the coating operations. The coating operations include: the equipment used to

apply the coatings; the equipment to dry or cure the coatings after application; all storage

containers and mixing vessels; all manual and automated equipment and containers used to

convey the coating materials; and all storage containers and manual and automated equipment

used for conveying waste materials generated by the coating operations. The coating application

lines and the drying and curing ovens are the largest sources of HAP emissions. The coating

application lines apply an exterior base coat to two- and three-piece cans using a

lithographic/printing (i.e., roll) application process. The inside, side seam, and repair coatings are

spray applied using airless spray equipment and are a minor portion of the can coating

operations. As indicated by the name, repair spray coatings are used to cover breaks in the

coating that are caused during the formation of the score in easy-open ends or to provide, after

the manufacturing process, an additional protective layer for corrosion resistance.

The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for

existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources for organic HAP emissions from four

subcategories of can coating operations. Within the four subcategories are several different types

of 162


of coatings with separate emission limits. The specific organic HAP emission limits are provided

in Tables 1 and 2 of 40 CRF part 63, subpart KKKK.

The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP provides that emission limits can be

achieved using several different options, including a compliant material option, an emission rate

without add-on controls option (averaging option), an emission rate with add-on controls option,

or a control efficiency/outlet concentration option. For any coating operation(s) on which the

facility uses the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on controls option,

the facility is not required to meet any work practice standards.

If the facility uses the emission rate with add-on controls option, the facility must develop

and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage,

mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials

generated by, the coating operation(s) using that option. The plan must specify practices and

procedures to ensure that a set of minimum work practices specified in the NESHAP are

implemented. The facility must also comply with site-specific operating limits for the emission

capture and control system.

2. What is the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category and how does the current NESHAP

regulate its HAP emissions?

The EPA promulgated the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category NESHAP on

June 10, 2002 (67 FR 39794). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS. The

Surface Coating of Metal Coil industry consists of facilities that operate a metal coil coating line.

The source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 48 facilities.

The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP (40 CFR 63.5110) defines a “coil coating

line” as “a process and the collection of equipment used to apply an organic coating to the

of 162


surface of metal coil.” A coil coating line includes a web unwind or feed section, a series of one

or more work stations, and any associated curing oven, wet section, and quench station. A work

station is “a unit on a coil coating line where the coating material is deposited onto the metal coil

substrate” or a coating application station. This source category is further described in the June 4,

2019, RTR proposal. See 84 FR 25909.

The primary HAP emitted from metal coil coating operations are organic HAP and

include xylenes, glycol ethers, naphthalene, isophorone, toluene, diethylene glycol monobutyl

ether (DGME), and ethyl benzene. The majority of organic HAP emissions are from the coating

application stations and the curing ovens.

The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for

organic HAP emissions from the coating application stations and associated curing ovens. The

Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP provides that emission limits can be achieved using

several different options: (1) use only individually compliant coatings with an organic HAP

content that does not exceed 0.046 kilogram (kg)/liter of solids applied, (2) use coatings with an

average organic HAP content that does not exceed 0.046 kg/liter of solids on a rolling 12-month

average, (3) use a capture system and add-on control device to either reduce emissions by 98

percent or use a 100-percent efficient capture system (permanent total enclosure (PTE)) and an

oxidizer to reduce organic HAP emissions to no more than 20 parts per million by volume as

carbon, or (4) use a combination of compliant coatings and control devices to maintain an

average equivalent emission rate of organic HAP not exceeding 0.046 kg/liter of solids on a

rolling 12-month average basis. These compliance options apply to an individual coil coating

line, to multiple lines as a group, or to the entire affected source.

C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our June 4, 2019, RTR proposal?

of 162


On June 4, 2019, the EPA published proposed rule amendments in the Federal Register

for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK, and the

Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, that took into

consideration the RTR analyses.

For each source category, we proposed that the risks are acceptable, and that additional

emission controls for each source category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of

safety. For the technology reviews, we did not identify any developments in practices, processes,

or control technologies, and, therefore, we did not propose any changes to the standards under

CAA section 112(d)(6).

We also proposed the following amendments:

• for each source category, a requirement for electronic submittal of notifications, semi-

annual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance test reports);

• for each source category, revisions to the SSM provisions of each NESHAP in order to

ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted source owners and

operators from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d)

emission standards during periods of SSM;

• for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, adding the option of conducting EPA

Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, “Measurement of Gaseous Organic

Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,” to measure and then subtract methane

emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon;

• for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, revising 40 CFR 63.5090 to clarify that

the NESHAP does not apply to the application of markings (including letters, numbers,

of 162


or symbols) to bare metal coils that are used for product identification or for product

inventory control;

• for each source category, removing references to paragraph (d)(4) of the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR

1910.1200), which dealt with OSHA-defined carcinogens, and replacing that reference

with a list of HAP that must be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on EPA

guidelines;

• for each source category, a requirement to conduct performance testing and reestablish

operating limits no less frequently than every 5 years for sources that are using add-on

controls to demonstrate compliance; and

• for each source category, Incorporation by Reference (IBR) of alternative test methods

and references to updated alternative test methods; and several minor editorial and

technical changes in each subpart.

III. What is included in these final rules?

This action finalizes the EPA’s determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA

section 112 for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category and the Surface Coating of

Metal Coil source category. This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP for each

source category, including:

• a requirement for electronic submittal of notifications, semi-annual reports, and

compliance reports (which include performance test reports);

• revisions to the SSM provisions;

• removing references to paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA’s Hazard Communication standard (29

CFR 1910.1200), which dealt with OSHA-defined carcinogens, and replacing that

of 162


reference with a list of HAP that must be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on

EPA guidelines;

• adding a requirement to conduct performance testing and reestablish operating limits no

less frequently than every 5 years for sources that are using add-on controls to

demonstrate compliance, unless they are already required to perform comparable periodic

testing as a condition of renewing their title V operating permit;

• IBR of alternative test methods and references to updated alternative test methods; and

• several minor editorial and technical changes.

This action also finalizes the proposed changes to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of

Metal Coil source category by adding the option of conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix

A to 40 CFR part 60, “Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas

Chromatography,” to measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total

gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon; and by revising 40 CFR 63.5090 to clarify that

the NESHAP does not apply to the application of markings (including letters, numbers, or

symbols) to bare metal coils that are used for product identification or for product inventory

control.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk reviews for the Surface Coating of

Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories?

This section describes the final amendments to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans

NESHAP (subpart KKKK) and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP (subpart SSSS)

being promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our proposed

determinations that risks from these two subparts are acceptable, and that the standards provide

an ample margin of safety to protect public health and to prevent an adverse environmental

of 162


effect. The EPA proposed no changes to these two subparts based on the risk reviews conducted

pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA received no new data or other information during the

public comment period that causes us to change those proposed determinations. Therefore, we

are not requiring additional controls under CAA section 112(f)(2) for either of the two subparts

in this action.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology reviews for the Surface Coating

of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories?

We determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control

technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for these source categories.

Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction?

We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans

NESHAP and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption.

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA is establishing

standards in these rules that apply at all times. As detailed in section IV.C of the proposal

preamble (84 FR 2592, June 4, 2019), Table 5 to Subpart KKKK of Part 63 and Table 2 to

Subpart SSSS of Part 63 (General Provisions applicability tables) are being revised to change

several references related to the provisions that apply during periods of SSM. We also eliminated

or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM

exemption. The EPA also made other harmonizing changes to remove or modify inappropriate,

unnecessary, or redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. We determined that

facilities in both of these source categories can meet the applicable emission standards in the

of 162


Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP at all

times, including periods of startup and shutdown. Therefore, the EPA determined that no

additional standards are needed to address emissions during these periods. The legal rationale

and explanation of the changes for SSM periods are set forth in the proposed rule. See 84 FR

25925 through 25929 and 25936 through 25939.

Further, the EPA is not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As discussed in section

IV.C of the June 4, 2019, proposal preamble, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not

requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of

CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set standards for

malfunctions where feasible. For these source categories, it is unlikely that a malfunction would

result in a violation of the standards, and no comments or information were submitted that

support a contrary conclusion. Refer to section IV.C of the June 4, 2019 proposal preamble for

further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the decision not to set standards for malfunctions, as

well as a discussion of the actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source fails to

comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event,

given that administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards

fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and the EPA can

consider all relevant information when determining the appropriate response to those situations.

We are finalizing a revision to the performance testing requirements at 40 CFR 63.4164

and 40 CFR 63.5160. The final performance testing provisions prohibit performance testing

during startup, shutdown, or malfunction as these conditions are not representative of steady

state operating conditions. The final rules also require that operators maintain records to

document that operating conditions during performance tests represent steady state conditions.

of 162


D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAPs?

For both the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and the Surface Coating of Metal

Coil NESHAP, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, several other revisions that are described in

the following paragraphs.

To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility, we are

finalizing a requirement that owners and operators of facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal

Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories submit electronic copies of required

performance test reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) website using an

electronic performance test report tool called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). We also are

finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow facility operators the ability to seek extensions for

submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility, i.e., for a

possible outage in the CDX or Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or

for a force majeure event in the time just prior to a report’s due date, as well as the process to

assert such a claim.

For each subpart, we also are changing the format of references to test methods in 40

CFR part 60, appendix A to indicate where, in the eight sections of appendix A, each method is

found.

For each subpart, we are finalizing the proposal to re-designate the list of applicable

organic HAP that must be used when a facility chooses to use the compliant material option (i.e.,

for calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material present at 0.1 percent or greater

by mass). To specify the applicable HAP, we are changing the rule to remove the reference to

paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA’s Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) and replace

it with a new table in each subpart (Table 8 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK and Table 3 in 40

of 162


CFR part 63, subpart SSSS) that lists the applicable HAP. The organic HAP in these new tables

are those HAP that were categorized in the EPA’s “Prioritized Chronic Dose-Response Values

for Screening Risk Assessments” (dated May 9, 2014) as a “human carcinogen,” “probable

human carcinogen,” or “possible human carcinogen” according to The Risk Assessment

Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987)2 or as “carcinogenic to humans,” “likely

to be carcinogenic to humans,” or with “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential”

according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March 2005).

We are including in the final rule for each subpart a requirement for facilities that use

control devices to conduct control device performance testing no less frequently than once every

5 years. For facilities with title V permits that require comparable periodic testing prior to permit

renewal, no additional testing is required, and we included provisions in the rule to allow sources

to harmonize the NESHAP testing schedule with a facility’s current title V testing schedule.

1. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP

In the final rule, we are amending 40 CFR 63.3481(c)(5), as proposed, to revise the

reference to “future subpart MMMM” of this part by removing the word “future” because

subpart MMMM was promulgated in 2004.

We are revising the monitoring provisions for thermal and catalytic oxidizers, as

proposed, to clarify that a thermocouple is part of the temperature sensor referred to in 40 CFR

63.3547(c)(3) and 40 CFR 63.3557(c)(3) for purposes of performing periodic calibration and

verification checks.

2 See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.

of 162


Currently, 40 CFR 63.3513(a) allows records, “where appropriate,” to be maintained as

“electronic spreadsheets” or a “database.” As proposed, we are adding a clarification to this

provision that the allowance to retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted

as reports electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI. We are also adding text to the same provision, as

proposed, clarifying that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement

for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency

or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

In the final rule, as proposed, we are adding and updating test methods that are

incorporated by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is

incorporating by reference the following voluntary consensus standards (VCS) described in the

amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:

• ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521 (c) and 63.3531(c);

• ASTM D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(c) and 63.3531(c);

• ASTM D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(a)(2);

• ASTM D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(b)(1); and

• ASTM D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(b)(1).

2. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP

We are finalizing, as proposed, changes to 40 CFR 63.5090 to clarify that 40 CFR part

63, subpart SSSS does not apply to the application to bare metal coils of markings (including

of 162


letters, numbers, or symbols) that are used for product identification or for product inventory

control.

We are finalizing amendments to 40 CFR 63.5160(d) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS,

as proposed, to add the option of conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60,

“Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,” to measure

and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions, as

carbon, for those facilities using the emission rate with add-on control compliance option and

EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency.

Currently 40 CFR 63.5190 specifies records that must be maintained. We are adding, as

proposed, clarification to 40 CFR 63.5190(c) that specifies the allowance to retain electronic

records applies to all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI.

We are also adding text to the same provision clarifying that this ability to maintain electronic

copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available

upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

We are clarifying and harmonizing, as proposed, the general duty requirement in 40 CFR

63.5140(a) with the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.5180(g)(2)(v) and 40 CFR

63.5180(h)(4) and the recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5), by including new

language in 40 CFR 63.5140(a) to read as, “… you must be in compliance with the applicable

emission standards in §63.5120 and the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart at all times.”

We are revising, as proposed, the text in the semi-annual reporting provisions of 40 CFR

63.5180(g)(2)(v) to read, “A statement that there were no deviations from the applicable

emission limit in §63.5120 or the applicable operating limit(s) established according to §63.5121

during the reporting period, and that no continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) were

of 162


inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.” Conforming changes

are also being made to the reporting requirement at 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(4) and the recordkeeping

requirement at 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5).

We are revising, as proposed, one instance in 40 CFR 63.5160(e) in which an erroneous

rule citation, “§63.5170(h)(2) through (4),” is made by correcting the citation to “§63.5170(g)(2)

through (4).”

We are amending, as proposed, 40 CFR 63.5130(a) to clarify that the compliance date for

existing affected sources is June 10, 2005.

We are amending, as proposed, 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(D) to correct a typographical

error in a reference to paragraphs “(d)(3)(ii)(D)(1 (3).” The correct reference is to paragraphs

(d)(3)(ii)(D)(1)-(3).

We are amending, as proposed, 40 CFR 63.5170(c)(1) and (2) to correct the cross

references to 40 CFR 63.5120(a)(1) or (2). The correct cross references are to 40 CFR

63.5120(a)(1) or (3).

We are amending, as proposed, Equation 11 in 40 CFR 63.5170 so that the value

calculated by the equation is correctly identified as “He” instead of just “e.”

In the final rule, as proposed, we are adding and updating test methods that are

incorporated by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is

incorporating by reference the following methods and VCS described in the amendments to 40

CFR 63.14:

• ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c);

• ASTM D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c);

of 162


• ASTM D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(b)(2);

• ASTM D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c); and

• ASTM D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c).

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the revisions to the standards?

The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this action are effective on

[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

The compliance date for existing affected sources in both the Surface Coating of Metal

Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories is [INSERT DATE 181 DAYS

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], with the exception of

the electronic format for submitting semiannual compliance reports. New sources must comply

with all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, [INSERT DATE

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or upon startup, whichever is later,

with the exception of the electronic format for submitting semiannual compliance reports. For

the electronic format for submitting semiannual compliance reports, both existing and new

affected sources will have 1 year after the electronic reporting templates are available on CEDRI,

or 1 year after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],

whichever is later. The EPA selected these compliance dates based on experience with similar

industries and the EPA’s detailed justification for the selected compliance dates is included in the

preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 25931 and 25942).

F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA?

As proposed, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data

submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners

of 162


and operators of facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal

Coil source categories to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports.

Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer using EPA-

provided software. This EPA-provided software is an electronic performance test report tool

called the ERT. The ERT will generate an electronic report package which will be submitted to

CEDRI and then archived to the EPA’s CDX. A description of the ERT and instructions for

using ERT can be found at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. The CEDRI interface

can be accessed through the CDX website (https://cdx.epa.gov/).

The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA does not

create any additional performance testing requirements and will apply only to those performance

tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and

test methods supported by the ERT is available at the ERT website. Through this approach,

industry will save time in the performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking

will benefit industry by reducing recordkeeping costs, as the performance test reports that are

submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept in hard copy.

State, local, and tribal agencies may benefit from a more streamlined and accurate review

of performance test data that will become available to the public through WebFIRE. Having such

data publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough

discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct computer-to-computer

electronic transfer and using EPA-provided software, see the discussion in the preamble of the

proposed rules (84 FR 25904, June 24, 2019) and the memorandum, Electronic Reporting

Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards

of 162


for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, August 8, 2018, in the Surface Coating of Metal

Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Dockets.

In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy

development, and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated

with performance test data will save industry, state/local/tribal agencies, and the EPA significant

time, money, and effort while improving the quality of emission inventories and air quality

regulations.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Surface Coating

of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories?

For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are

finalizing for the issue, the EPA’s rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a

summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble,

comment summaries and the EPA’s responses can be found in the comment summary and

response document available in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal

Coil Dockets.

A. Residual Risk Reviews

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f)?

a. Surface Coating of Metal Cans (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KKKK) Source Category Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk review and presented

the results of this review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and

ample margin of safety, in sections IV.A.2.a and b of the proposed rule preamble (84 FR 25904,

June 24, 2019). The results of this review are presented briefly below in Table 2 of this

preamble. Additional detail is provided in the residual risk technical support document titled,

of 162


Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source Category in Support of

the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the Surface Coating

of Metal Cans Docket.

TABLE 2. SURFACE COATING OF METAL CANS SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS AT PROPOSAL

1 The target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) is the sum of the chronic noncancer hazard quotients (HQ) values for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system. 2 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values (HQREL = hazard quotient reference exposure level).

The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions data, as

shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on

actual emissions (lifetime) is 3-in-1 million (driven by formaldehyde), the maximum chronic

noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions is 0.02 (driven by formaldehyde), and the

maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 0.4 (driven by

formaldehyde). At proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities

based on actual emission levels was estimated to be 0.0009 excess cancer cases per year, or one

case in every 1,100 years.

The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using allowable emissions data, as


Risk Assessment

Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million)

Estimated population at

increased risk of cancer ≥ 1-in-1

million

Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year)

Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI1 Maximum

screening acute

noncancer HQ2

Based on actual

emissions

Based on

allowable emissions

Based on actual

emissions

Based on allowable emissions

Based on actual

emissions


Based on actual

emissions


Source Category 3 3 700 800 0.0009 0.001 0.02 0.02

HQREL = 0.4

Whole Facility 8 - 1,500 - 0.002 - 0.2 - -

of 162


allowable emissions (lifetime) is 3-in-1 million (driven by formaldehyde), and the maximum

chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on allowable emissions is 0.02 (driven by formaldehyde).

At proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on allowable

emissions was estimated to be 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 1,000

years.

The maximum individual cancer risk (lifetime) for the whole facility was determined to

be 8-in-1 million at proposal, driven by formaldehyde from miscellaneous industrial processes

(other/not classified) and acetaldehyde from beer production (brew kettle). At proposal, the total

estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility was determined to be 0.002 excess cancer

cases per year, or one excess case in every 500 years. Approximately 1,500 people were

estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both

MACT and non-MACT sources at three of the five facilities in this source category. The

maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category was estimated to be 0.2, mainly driven by

emissions of acetaldehyde from beer production (brew kettle) and formaldehyde from

miscellaneous industrial processes (other/not classified).

There are no persistent and bioaccumulative HAP (PB HAP) emitted by facilities in this

source category; therefore, we did not estimate any human health multi-pathway risks from this

source category. Two environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category:

hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). Therefore, at proposal, we conducted a

screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental risks associated with emissions

of HCl and HF. Based on this evaluation, we proposed that we do not expect an adverse

environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.

of 162


We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table 2 of this preamble, in

our risk acceptability determination and proposed that the residual risks from the Surface

Coating of Metal Cans source category are acceptable (section IV.A.2.a of proposal preamble, 84

FR 25922, June 4, 2019).

We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK provides an ample margin

of safety to protect public health and prevents, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,

and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. In considering whether the standards

should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we considered

the same risk factors that we considered for our acceptability determination and also considered

the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to emissions control options

that might further reduce risk associated with emissions from the source category. Related to

risk, the baseline risks were low, and regardless of the availability of further control options,

little risk reduction could be realized. As discussed further in section IV.B of this preamble, the

only development identified in the technology review was the ongoing development and the

potential future conversion from conventional interior can coatings that contain bisphenol A

(BPA) to interior coatings that do not intentionally contain BPA (BPA–NI). Since BPA and

BPA–NI are not HAP, this change would have no effect on the HAP emissions. There were no

other technological developments identified that affect HAP emissions for the Surface Coating of

Metal Cans source category. Therefore, given the low baseline risks and lack of options for

further risk reductions, we proposed that additional emission controls for this source category are

not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (section IV.A.2.b of proposal preamble, 84

FR 25922, June 4, 2019).

b. Surface Coating of Metal Coil (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KKKK) Source Category

of 162


Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk review and presented

the results of this review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and

ample margin of safety, in sections IV.B.2.a and b of the proposed rule preamble (84 FR 25904,

June 24, 2019). The results of this review are presented briefly below in Table 3 of this

preamble. Additional detail is provided in the residual risk technical support document titled,

Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category in Support of

the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the Surface Coating

of Metal Coil Docket.

TABLE 3. SURFACE COATING OF METAL COIL SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS AT PROPOSAL

1 The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ values for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system. 2 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values (HQREL = hazard quotient reference exposure level).

The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions data, as


actual emissions (lifetime) is 10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene from solvent storage), the

maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions is 0.1 (driven by glycol

ethers from prime and finish coating application), and the maximum screening acute noncancer

Risk Assessment

Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million)

Estimated population at

increased risk of cancer ≥ 1-in-1

million

Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year)

Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI1 Maximum

screening acute

noncancer HQ2

Based on actual

emissions

Based on

allowable emissions

Based on actual

emissions


Based on actual

emissions


Based on actual

emissions


Source Category 10 10 19,000 24,000 0.005 0.006 0.1 0.1

HQREL = 3

Whole Facility 40 - 270,000 - 0.03 - 5 - -

of 162


HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 3 (driven by DGME). At proposal, the total annual

cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission levels was estimated to

be 0.005 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 200 years.

The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using allowable emissions data, as


allowable emissions (lifetime) is 10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene from solvent storage),

and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on allowable emissions is 0.1 (driven

by glycol ethers from prime and finish coating application). At proposal, the total annual cancer

incidence (national) from these facilities based on allowable emissions was estimated to be 0.006

excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 167 years.

The maximum individual cancer risk (lifetime) for the whole facility was determined to

be 40-in-1 million at proposal, driven by naphthalene from equipment cleanup of metal coil

coating processes. At proposal, the total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility was

determined to be 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 30 years.

Approximately 270,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from

exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources of the 48 facilities in this

source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category was estimated to be

5, driven by emissions of chlorine from a secondary aluminum fluxing process.

One PB HAP is emitted by facilities in the source category: lead. In evaluating the

potential for multipathway effects from emissions of lead, the modeled maximum annual lead

concentration of 0.0004 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3 ) was compared to the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead of 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3).

Results of this analysis confirmed that the NAAQS for lead would not be exceeded by any

of 162


facility. Based on this evaluation, we proposed that there is no significant potential for human

health multi-pathway risks as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. Two

environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: HF and lead. Therefore,

at proposal we conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental

risks associated with emissions of HF and lead. Based on this evaluation, we proposed that we do

not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source

category.

We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table 3 of this preamble, in

our risk acceptability determination and proposed that the residual risks from the Surface

Coating of Metal Coil source category are acceptable (section IV.B.2.a of proposal preamble, 84

FR 25933 June 4, 2019).

We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS provides an ample margin of

safety to protect public health and prevents, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and

other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. In considering whether the standards

should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we considered

the same risk factors that we considered for our acceptability determination and also considered

the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to emissions control options

that might further reduce risk associated with emissions from the source category. As discussed

further in section IV.B of this preamble, based on our technology review, we did not identify any

developments in practices, processes, or control technologies, and, therefore, we did not propose

any changes to the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

Due to the low baseline risks for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category and

lack of options for further risk reductions, we proposed that additional emission controls for this

of 162


source category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (section IV.B.2.b of

proposal preamble, 84 FR 25934, June 4, 2019).

2. How did the risk reviews change?

We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment for either of these two source

categories as a result of public comments received on the June 2019 proposal.

3. What key comments did we receive on the risk reviews, and what are our responses?

We received comments in support of and against the proposed residual risk reviews and

our determinations that no revisions were warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for either

source category. Generally, the comments that were not supportive of our determinations based

on the risk reviews suggested changes to the underlying risk assessment methodology. For

example, one commenter stated that the EPA should lower the acceptability benchmark so that

risks below 100-in-1 million are deemed unacceptable, include emissions outside of the source

categories in question in the risk assessment, and assume that pollutants with noncancer health

risks have no safe level of exposure. After review of all the comments received, we determined

that no changes to our Science Advisory Board-approved residual risk review process were

necessary. The comments and our specific responses can be found in the document, Summary of

Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Reviews for Surface Coating of

Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil, available in the dockets for these actions (Docket

ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685).

4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the risk reviews?

As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using “a

two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an ‘acceptable risk’

that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a

of 162


presumptive limit on the maximum individual risk (MIR) of “approximately 1-in-10 thousand”

(see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability

determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum chronic noncancer

TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of

cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.

Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations regarding risk

acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse environmental effects have changed. For the

reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the Surface Coating of

Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories are acceptable, and that the

current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an

adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we are not revising either subpart to require additional

controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and we are

readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Reviews

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)?

Based on our review, we did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or

control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, and, therefore, we

did not propose any changes to the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). A brief summary of

the EPA’s findings in conducting the technology review of metal can coating operations was

included in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 25922, June 4, 2019), and a detailed

discussion of the EPA’s technology review and findings was included in the memorandum,

Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Can Category, April 24, 2019,

in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans Docket.

of 162


Based on our review, we did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or

control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, and, therefore, we

did not propose any changes to the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). A brief summary of

the EPA’s findings in conducting the technology review of coil coating operations was included

in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 25934, June 4, 2019), and a detailed discussion of

the EPA’s technology review and findings was included in the memorandum, Technology Review

for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Coil Category, September 2017, in the Surface Coating

of Metal Coil Docket.

2. How did the technology reviews change?

We are making no changes to the conclusions of the technology reviews and are

finalizing the results of the technology reviews for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and

Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories as proposed.

3. What key comments did we receive on the technology reviews, and what are our responses?

We received two general comments supporting the results of our technology reviews for

metal cans and metal coil surface coating and one comment objecting to our conclusions that

there have been no technology developments in these two source categories.

Comment: One commenter alleged that the EPA has not met the legal obligation under

CAA section 112(d)(6) to review and revise emission standards “as necessary” to account for

“developments in practices, processes, and control technologies.” The commenter objected that

the EPA proposed no revisions to the emission limits and claimed the EPA provided no legally

valid or rational explanation for its determination of a lack of “developments” for these two

source categories. The commenter pointed out that the EPA identified several HAP control

advancements, including alternative coatings, developments for similar source categories, and

of 162


work practices and housekeeping measures for metal coil facilities, which would reduce

emissions and are in use at a number of facilities, yet failed to determine that it was “necessary”

to revise the standard. In addition, the commenter alleged that the EPA technology review

analysis did not consider some relevant sources to determine “developments.” As examples, the

commenter stated that the EPA did not analyze any control methods or requirements from other

national or state or local jurisdictions that might have proven more effective; did not appear to

analyze the different methods or brands of emission controls implemented to see which was most

effective, efficient, or reliable; and did not examine facility procedures or best practices,

including records of malfunctions, to identify best practices to mitigate malfunctions.

Response: We disagree with the commenter that the EPA has failed to meet the CAA’s

legal obligation to complete the technology reviews for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and

Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories. The EPA concluded there were no HAP control

advancements for these source categories as a result of the technology reviews. The technology

reviews included review of coatings currently used by these source categories and any

advancements in the coatings; review of HAP control requirements in NESHAP for similar

coating source categories and application of those HAP controls to the Surface Coating of Metal

Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories; state and local HAP control

requirements in facility title V operating permits and application of those HAP controls to the

Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories; and work

practices and housekeeping measures currently used by these source categories and any advances

that were applicable to these source categories.

As stated in the proposal preamble (84 FR 25935) for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil

source category, alternatives to solvent borne coatings have been in use by the coil coating

of 162


industry since development of the 2002 Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP but are not

considered to be suitable for all end-product applications. The 2002 proposed NESHAP provided

an alternative facility HAP emission limit of 0.24 pounds of HAP per gallon of solids applied

which was established to provide a compliance option for facilities that chose to limit their

coating line HAP emissions either through a combination of low-HAP coatings and add-on

controls or through the use of waterborne, high solids, or other pollution prevention coatings.

The EPA found no developments in alternative coating technologies during the technology

review that would result in achievable emission rates that are substantially lower than those

reflected in the current emission limits.

The commenter also asserted that the EPA did not consider developments in control

methods for similar source categories and did not analyze the regulations set by state or local

jurisdictions that might have proven more effective than the NESHAP requirements. We

disagree with the commenter and refer the commenter to the technology review memorandums

titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Can Category and

Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Coil Category which

summarizes the EPA’s review of the title V operating permits for the five metal can facilities and

for 39 metal coil facilities that are major sources and subject to these NESHAP. The title V

operating permits incorporate all relevant local, state, or Regional emission limitations, as well as

federal limitations. In no case did the EPA find a facility subject to a HAP limit more stringent

than the limits in the current NESHAP or a facility using a control technology that was not

considered during development of the NESHAP and reflected in the current standards. The

results of the technology reviews were documented in these memorandums in the respective

docket for each proposed rule.

of 162


The technology basis for MACT for metal coil coating operations in the 2002 Surface

Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP was emission capture and add on control with an overall control

ef

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY...Coating of Metal Cans, and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685 for...

Documents

Transcript of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY...Coating of Metal Cans, and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685 for...